Summary: Mr X says the Council failed to take enforcement action against the breach of a planning condition by a local school. This complaint was closed because there was no fault by the Council in terms of its consideration of the planning enforcement matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to take enforcement action against the breach of a planning condition by a local school.
2. The breach concerns access to the school’s car park. Mr X says the entrance is being misused by parents, delivery workmen as well as children entering and leaving the school.
3. Mr X says the particular gate is left open by school staff. His driveway and those of his neighbours are blocked by delivery drivers trying to get into the school at different times of the day. Mr X says he has been verbally abused by parents and workmen and his property has been damaged.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed the complaint and information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s complaint is that the Council failed to take enforcement action against the breach of a planning condition by a local school.
8. The Council granted planning permission to regularise the operation of a car park at a local school in 2010. The entrance to the car park is located on the road where Mr X lives.
9. One of the conditions of the planning permission restricts the use of vehicular access to the car park to school staff and for deliveries. It stated the gate should be locked between 08:30 and 16:00. It would be open between 07:30 and 08:30 and 16:00 and 17:00 unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority.
10. Another condition also required the school to submit a management plan showing how access to the car park would be controlled.
11. But the school did not submit a management plan until 2017 following concerns raised by Mr X.
12. When Mr X received a copy of the management plan he noted the school had changed the timing of access from the times specified in the condition. The school set out access times as between 06:00 to 08:30 and from 15.30 to 16:30. Mr X also noted the condition stated the gate would be controlled through an intercom system from the school office. But the management plan said the gate would be locked with a combination setting and entrance and exit would be through use of a code. Mr X complained to the Council these changes amounted to a breach of the condition.
13. The Council did not find the use of a combination lock and code was a breach of the condition. It said the purpose of the condition was to control access to the site by people other than school staff or those concerned with deliveries. It was satisfied this could be done whether by an intercom system or combination lock.
14. The Council accepted the school changed the times of access from those specified in the condition. But it noted the wording of the condition allowed for a change if agreed with the county planning authority. It agreed to the change following discussions between the school and residents.
15. Planning enforcement action is warranted if a local planning authority first establishes a breach of planning control, and then, only if it considers it is expedient to take action.
16. The Council found a breach of planning control because the school had not submitted a management plan. It is clear the Council asked the school for a management plan and then considered the content of the plan before deciding Mr X’s planning enforcement complaint. I am satisfied the Council properly considered its planning enforcement responsibility and do not find fault with its decision not to take further action.
17. It is not for the Council’s planning enforcement department to address possible anti-social behaviour by parents or workmen and so I do not consider these matters are now to be addressed by this investigation. Nonetheless, I note officers contacted the school to convey Mr X’s concerns in an attempt to address them.
18. It is evident Mr X remains disturbed by the alleged actions of parents and workmen trying to access the school through the entrance in question here. That is a matter Mr X may take up directly with the school.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I closed this complaint because there was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman